History is a record of past events, and to deserve
the name of history the events recorded must be authentic, for "cunningly
devised fables" are not history. Authentic history is of the essential
nature of testimony. A witness on the stand gives a statement of facts,
evidence, testimony. So true is it that not only minor matters of litigation,
but even "death and life are in the power of the tongue." Prov. 18.21.

A very large portion of the Bible is historical. The first
words in it announce one of the most important historical facts: "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The great importance of
this statement appears from the speculations of heathen philosophers, and
self-styled scientists in our own age. 2 Pet. 3.3-5. Also many of the Psalms
are historical, epitomizing the previous facts recorded in the Old Testament,
that these might be more indelibly impressed upon the mind and heart of
God's people, and that they "might not forget his words;" for then they
"forget God their Saviour." Psalm 106.13,21.

Moreover, the origin and progress of the visible church
in the world, under different dispensations of mercy, is matter of historical
record. She is on earth the only immortal corporation; and since the canon
of inspired Scripture closed, she has had no one infallible historian.
Many, indeed, have undertaken "to set forth in order a declaration of those
things which are {354} most surely believed among the disciples of Christ;"
but "their witness agreed not together." Luke 1.1; Mark 14.56. Those who
take as guides in searching the history of the church, Mosheim, Milner,
or many others, are following false guides, whose delineations portray
the features of the "scarlet lady" rather than the "Lamb's wife." In this
historical factthe almost universal misrepresentations of the spouse of
Christ, the intelligent reader may discover the reason for a select class,
whom the Lord Jesus expressly distinguishes from all other as "his witnesses,"
Rev. 11.3, and the necessity for their testimony. These and these only
are "children that will not lie," Isa. 63.8; "and in their mouth is found
no guile," Rev. 14.5. Hence, the necessity of historical testimony.

Again, history interprets prophecy, which is an ever-increasing
evidence that the Holy Scriptures are from God. How could it be known when
the canon was settled but mainly by history? Or how can antichrist be identified,
or the witnesses themselves, but by history? For the doctrines, the worship,
government, and discipline of the church have all been misrepresented,
counterfeited, and even the church herself! Rev. 17.18. Thus it
is apparent that the only way by which the witnesses can identify the true
church is by comparing doctrine and order with the alone infallible rule,
the Bible; and this comparing involves reasoningargument; history
and argument do, therefore, constitute the church's testimony and supply
her Terms of Communion, by which she is distinguished from the "flocks
of the companions." Reader, where did you get all the subordinate standards
of your published faith, your confession, catechisms, &c.? You will
probably sayFrom Westminster, England, and from Scotland; but how do you
know? For about forty-six years ago, had you been a member in the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, this question might have puzzled you. About that time
we received new light on that matter, when the following startling statements
were first published by professing Covenanters: "Even the fact of the existence
of the Westminster Assembly {355} has been for several generations a matter
merely of human history Such a faith" (in the existence of the Westminster
Assembly) "could not be the faith of God's elect." Again, "That such covenants
were ever entered into has no other evidence than mere historical record,
and consequently ought not to be made an article of the believer's faith"1a
term of communion.

We have often said, and we now repeat, that there are
two kinds of faith by which society is held together. Faith and
belief are convertible terms. The kind of testimony in any case
determines the kind of faith. Divine faith is founded and rests
on divine testimony alone; whereas human faith needs as a foundation
only human testimony.2
All human relations in this world are grounded on human evidencetestimony.
Does the husband identify his wife, or the wife her husband by divine testimony?
Can the parents know their child, or the child the parents by the Bible?
We insist upon this point, "giving precept upon precept," simple though
it be; because we know with absolute certainty that even learned divines,
including many theological professors, Doctors of Divinity even, of the
Covenanting name, have forsaken the covenant cause of Christ, through their
sinful and shameful ignorance of this matter. Our reformed ancestors thoroughly
understood this point before there ever was a D.D. known among them. Why
did they attach the word infallible to the first Term of Communion?3
Because it, and it alone, demands divine faith; all the rest requiring
human faith only, because they are falliblesubordinate to the first term.
Did our truly learned and godly progenitors stultify themselves by contradicting
their own Confession? [WCF] Ch. 31: Sec. 4.

To make this topic in theology and faithful testimony-bearing
{356} so plain that "he may run that readeth it," and to render those who
prefer to continue "willingly ignorant" inexcusable, we give an illustration
adapted, we hope, to the capacity of even babes in Christ:

Question,Do you believe there is such a place as Scotland?
Answer,I think I do, for it is laid down on the school-atlas, and whoever
made the atlas must have believed in its existence. Q.Do you find Scotland
named in the Bible? A.No. Q.Do you believe that Richard Cameron, Donald
Cargill, James Renwick, and many others associated with them, lived in
Scotland in the latter half of the seventeenth century? A.I do, for I
have both heard and read about those ministers. Q.But you do not read
of them in the Bible, do you? A.No. Q.Well, have you read of the principles
they held, and how they applied their principles? A.Yes, I know the principles
they propagated, and also the way they applied them. Q.Now, were they
malefactors, as most of their countrymen charged, or were they indeed martyrs
of Jesus Christ? A.I believe they were martyrs. So you believe in human
testimony, that there is such a place on the earth as Scotland; that Richard
Cameron, &c. once lived in Scotland; that they taught certain doctrines
and applied them, and for such teaching and practice they suffered a violent
death, martyrdom; and yet you find nothing of this in the Bible.
"Human records" alone supply these facts, from which, comparing them
with the Word of God, you argue and conclude with certainty that those
people were witnesses for Christ. Now, if you reject the history of their
principles, practice, and sufferings, how can you honestly or rationally
claim identity with them? You thereby sever the only link of connection.
You may be piousa Christian, but not a Covenanted Presbyterian. And if
your supreme end is your own salvation, you have mistaken the end of your
being. Rev. 4.11, and come short of that type of patriotism which the example
of the martyrs supplies. Hence

1. The British Covenants are manifestly historical
documents. {357}

2. The peculiarity of the National Covenant, that
it was framed, sworn, and often renewed in Scotland, does not destroy its
moral character, or affect the permanency of its obligation; and the same
is true of the Solemn League and Covenant.

3. The very names of these covenantsyes, and the principles
incorporated in them, which have given Christian liberty and liberty of
conscience to many millions, come to us through the medium of history alone.

4. All who have adhered to these covenants have been known
for centuries by historic names, and can be identified in no other
way; as "Cameronians, Cargillites, Society People, Mountain-men, Covenanters,"
&c. And by near and necessary consequence,

5. All who reject history from their conditions of fellowship,
and yet claim kindred with the Reformed Covenanted Church, are "deceiving
and being deceived." In this matter they are false witnesses; but "we wot
that through ignorance they do it."

And now we proceed to substantiate the foregoing statements
and allegations by adducing evidence from the recognized Standards
of some of these pretenders.

The first in historical order is Reformation Principles
Exhibited, 1806. This document does not even call itself by the name
Testimony. The "Declaratory Part" of this book, and this alone,
is called testimony"the Church's Standing Testimony." Preface,
page 8. Here are two errors, That a declaration of principles or doctrines
is testimony, and that the Testimony of the Church is "Standing;" that
is, stationary. But no, the testimony of the witnesses consists
of facts, as has been already proved: and this testimony is cumulative
and necessarily progressive until it be finished. Rev. 11.7.

Again, "The Historical part" of this book, or "Plan" of
its authors, "is partly founded upon human records, and, therefore,
not an article of faith." Ibidem. Here the phrase, "article of faith,"
is the same as, term of Communion. It is ambiguous {358} language,
confounding testimony with confession, as on page 8. It is true that neither
history nor argument belongs formally to confession, but all three are
integral parts of the Terms of Communion. In this country both Synods [Old
Light and New Light Reformed Presbyterians] claim identity, as do the Seceders,
with the Covenanted Witnesses; and those synods own the same judicial Testimony;
and from the force of habit alone, call Reformation Principles Exhibited
"Testimony;" although excluding both history and argument from the Terms!
Thus, both parties cut themselves off from the Covenanted Church. But is
this true? Hear their own words. In the work called, "Reformation Principles
Exhibited, Part I, Historical View," page 203, it is stated in plain
words, "That from the Terms of Communion this Church exclude all historical
details and arguments, private and public." So say the people of the
"General Synod of the R. P. Church." [New Light.] Those who belong to the
"Synod of the R. P. Church" [Old Light] are not so explicit, or so candid
in excluding history and argument from the "terms of fellowship." Both
parties use the phrase, "articles of faith," but the General Synod, in
the edition of 1871, tells us plainly that these words mean "Terms of Communion;"
and so we have often said in print for thirty-nine years!

Now, since both the synods named above openly reject "all
historical details and arguments, private and public;" we askHow can they
consistently claim to be identified with the martyrs of Scotland? or how,
by any possibility, can they honestly own the British covenants, while
rejecting the only means by which the witnesses and their testimony can
be knownuninspired history? They must be pitiably or "willingly ignorant"
who can be misled by such groundless pretensions and contradictory assumptions:
and the pretensions of the Synod [Old Light], and self-contradiction are
rendered more obvious than those of the General Synod [New Light], by the
awkward and vain attempt to graft the New American Covenant upon the stock
of the British covenants, or to inoculate the latter into the former.

We next invite the reader's attention to the New Scottish
{359} Testimony, which is owned equally by the Scottish and Irish Synods.
This document is obviously modeled after Reformation Principles Exhibited,
though still retaining the original and historic name, "Testimony." The
title-page also tells us that it is both "historical and doctrinal." (Glasgow
edition, 1866.) Then we are assured that history and doctrine are equally
obligatoryintegral parts of the Testimony: and this was attested by the
late Rev. William Anderson, in Synod and in our hearing, 1864, in Glasgow.
Yes, the book says, "Part I.Historical: Part II.Doctrinal." Now, let
the reader consult page 14 of Preface to the "historical part," where he
will find this important caveat,"It is obvious that when the church requires
an acknowledgment of a work like the present, the approbation expressed
has a reference to the principles embodied in it, and the proper
application of them." Why this caveat? and the answer isto exclude
history, the historical part of this book, only so far as "principles"
may be comprised in it, and the "proper application of them," thus confounding
history and principles! This document also confounds confession and testimony,
just as R. P. Exhibited had done, evincing that the very frame of the latter
was copied into the former, as has been already remarked.

Now let us hear what all the R. P. Synods in the British
Isles and America, say about the Original Testimony; the one to
which the Reformed Presbytery alone adheres:"The Act, Declaration, and
Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, was published in the year
1761. An acknowledgement of this document was thenceforward required as
a term of ministerial and Christian communion in the church. It has proved,
by the divine blessing, a most valuable and efficient instrument in explaining,
vindicating, and recommending the principles of the Covenanted Reformation,
not only in Scotland and Ireland, but in the Unites States of America."
(pp. 127-8.) In R. P. Exhibited, (Edition of 1835, p. 115,) the encomium
given of the Original Testimony, as to its orthodoxy and usefulness is
equally explicit, but too lengthy for insertion here. The reader can consult
{360} it at any time, not being, as yet, "consigned as much as possible
to oblivion, or to be found only on the shelf of the antiquary." Indeed,
the eulogy passed by the American document is even stronger than that of
the Scottish, on the Original Testimony. In the American the framers say,
it "affords a scriptural defence and full exhibition of the reformation
in its best state." Why then reject and disown it? Why a substitute?a
plurality of substitutes?necessitating a plurality of covenants and terms
of communion? and thus rending the organic body by "diverse and strange
doctrines?"

Let no one imagine we are opposed to the progress of the
church's testimony. We have demonstrated the contrary. We have humbly but
earnestly solicited cooperation in "readjusting the Judicial Testimony
of the R. P. Church," and this publicly for many years. In the execution
of such a work, however, the first point is to ascertain and agree upon
the subject matter and formal nature of a judicial testimony; so that principle
and practice be not confoundedlaw and facts identified.

We close this article with the following corollaries:

1. Confession and testimony, principle and practice, law
and fact, are to be carefully distinguished.

2. Doctrinal statement must be distinguished from historical
narrative, in framing a faithful judicial testimony.

3. Since the inspired canon was closed, Christ's witnesses
must use history and reason as essential elements in their testimony: and
in this way only, (since the rise of Antichrist especially,) can they have
fellowship with him. 1 John 1.1,3. Rev. 12.11,17.

4. A declaration of doctrine, subject to the correction
of Scripture, is the immediate rule, by which to test the position of any
church.

5. The church's testimony is not limited to a visible
or tangible book. As she subsisted many generations on divine testimony
without the Bible, (the book); so Christ's witnesses subsisted before
the Ploughlandhead Testimony of 1761 was in {361} existence. Their faithful
testimony may still be found in their published "Declarations," at Rutherglen,
Sanquhar, Lanark, &c., and in their Covenants. [And the Informatory
Vindication.]

6. No person or church can honestly or rationally claim
to be identified with the martyrs of Scotland, or to be of their house
and lineage, while ignorant of their history, or excluding their history
from the Terms of Communion.

7. All parties who exclude history and argument from their
Terms of Communion, do thereby exclude themselves from the R. P. Church.

Footnotes:

1. See A Narrative of Recent
Occurrences in the R. P. Church, page 36, by Rev. Robert Gibson. Mr.
Gibson, exposing this sophistry, tries it on its authors, thus"That there
ever was an assemblage of ministers and elders in the Eleventh St. church,
Phila. in August, 1833; as Drs. Black, Wylie, etc., is only matter of human
testimony, not sufficient for God's people to rest upon; such a faith could
not be that of God's elect. The Bible does not mention them, except
it be under the general name of backsliders."

2. That the modern reader may
be assured that this distinction between human faith resting upon
human testimony, and divine faith resting upon divine
testimony, is no invention of the Reformed Presbytery which constituted
in 1840, the present editor (JTK-2004) wishes to refer the reader to Archibald
Mason's short work on Saving Faith. Mason was a Reformed Presbyterian
minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and published
the following very clear and distinct sentiments in 1829, long before the
controversy between the Reformed Presbytery and the RPCNA:

The assent or persuasion of faith, is founded on the testimony
of another. We may be persuaded of the truth of things in several ways,
in which our faith has no concern. This conviction we may have from our
senses. This is not faith, but sight. We may be assured of many truths
by infallible demonstration; neither is this certainty that which flows
from faith; for the persuasion of faith rests only upon a testimony. This
is true of faith, whether we consider it as human or Divine. A human faith,
is that belief of the mind which has a respect to the things of men, and
rests upon a human testimony. A Divine faith, is that belief of the mind
which is versant about the things of God, and is built upon a divine testimony.
We entertain things with a human faith, when we believe they are true,
because they are attested unto us by creditable men. The persuasion of
the truth of the same thing, may be to one person a matter of sight, and
unto another a matter of faith, if one person has an opportunity of seeing
any transaction, or examining any object, his persuasion of its truth is
not from faith, but from sight or personal observation, and is to him intuitive
certainty. If another person has not the opportunity of seeing or examining
the matter, but has heard it faithfully reported to him by creditable persons,
then his persuasion of the truth of it is strictly faith; because it is
built upon a testimony. With respect to things that are Divine, a persons
belief of their truth, upon the testimony of God, is a Divine faith. It
is an assent unto, or persuasion of, the truth of Divine things, on the
warrant of the word of God, and rests upon the veracity of him that cannot
lie. There is no assent that we give unto the truth of things in religion,
which can properly be called faith, but that persuasion which is built
upon the testimony of God in his word.

3. The first Term of Communion
in the Reformed Presbyterian Church is as follows: "An acknowledgement
of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible
rule of faith and practice.